All Bush critics please read..

[DieTrying]

I got this in an e-mail and it really made me think a lot about the war in Iraq.. :thumbsup:



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following .

FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
Vietnam never attacked us.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked US!
President Bush has ...
liberated! two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Think about it, if it weren't for the United States the official language of the Republic of France would be German!!

If you can read this thank a teacher!. If you are reading it in English thank a soldier!

 

[DR.D]

Amen Brother! Great post, God bless America and the troops in Iraq and everywhere for that matter. They do not bare the sword in vain, and should be given high respect by all free citizens (that means whoever has the freedom to read this right now) God bless Bush too. How can people think they have better insight and underground, insider intelligence? He knows what he's doing, he has a ton of info, and I'm ashamed to call myself a democrat anymore with the Mickey Mouse bullshit political tactics they're using. The war was right not for republicans only but for the whole counrty, like you said, we're not controlled by Germany now, right? We could be had we not acted.

America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read his Muslim passages. The following is a verse from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

Quran 9:11 - "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in dispair, still more rejoiced. For the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah, and there was peace." (Note the verse number!) :goodpost:

I didn't care much for his daddy, but Bush Jr. has my vote.

 

[jarhead]

Awesome posts. We had every right to go into Iraq 10 years ago to get that scumbag out. And all the people pissed about not finding WMD's-Imagine you're the prez.- British MI-6 tells you he's got em. Russia tells you he's got em. Your own CIA says he has WMD'S. If you don't go in, knowing what everyone's told you, that's setting yourself up for impeachment. And the minute he did use them, everyone would be whining" why didn't you do anything to stop him?"

 

[BigChuckles]

Awesome posts. We had every right to go into Iraq 10 years ago to get that scumbag out. And all the people pissed about not finding WMD's-Imagine you're the prez.- British MI-6 tells you he's got em. Russia tells you he's got em. Your own CIA says he has WMD'S. If you don't go in, knowing what everyone's told you, that's setting yourself up for impeachment. And the minute he did use them, everyone would be whining" why didn't you do anything to stop him?"

I'm not republican and never plan to become one. However, I do agree with Bush going into Iraq. We as Americans take our freedom for granted. Most of the world is corrupt and we as responsible human beings need to do something about it.

 

[CDB]

I'm not republican and never plan to become one. However, I do agree with Bush going into Iraq. We as Americans take our freedom for granted. Most of the world is corrupt and we as responsible human beings need to do something about it.

I'm not a Republican either, I'm a Libertarian. I'm still undecided on this war, I think only time will tell on this one. And even though I'm no big fan of Bush's, I loved this posting. I'm so sick of all the moronic and irrelevant critiques of Bush circulating in email, the ones that point out how many people went bankrupt under him, etc. It's nice to see something pointing out the other side of the argument.

 

[jweave23]

This makes me

Call me an idealist, but I don't care how much lower the loss of lives was compared to previous wars, the fact of the matter is that we have about 1000 dead Amercians, a monstrous defecit, poor ecomonic growth, net job losses, no forward policy on education and healthcare, blah blah blah :rant: :frustrate

 

[CDB]

This makes me

Call me an idealist, but I don't care how much lower the loss of lives was compared to previous wars, the fact of the matter is that we have about 1000 dead Amercians, a monstrous defecit, poor ecomonic growth, net job losses, no forward policy on education and healthcare, blah blah blah :rant: :frustrate

Aside from the defecit you can blame the economy on Clinton and Greenspan, and essentially every administration and the Fed back to its inception. It's not like Bush got into office and all of a sudden the economy collapsed. Recessions follow naturally from booms, and are the result of the attmepted manipulations of the economy over the preceding years. If Kerry gets in we'll likely see another boom, but it'll be inflationary and won't last, and there will be another correction which liberals will blame on the Republicans.

 

[jweave23]

Aside from the defecit you can blame the economy on Clinton and Greenspan, and essentially every administration and the Fed back to its inception. It's not like Bush got into office and all of a sudden the economy collapsed. Recessions follow naturally from booms, and are the result of the attmepted manipulations of the economy over the preceding years. If Kerry gets in we'll likely see another boom, but it'll be inflationary and won't last, and there will be another correction which liberals will blame on the Republicans.

I'm not going to go into it in great detail, as it's rarely worth it or able to be agreed upon even by most economists, but the fact of the matter is fiscal monetary policy is the responsibility of the current administration. Many economists agree that fiscal policy usually takes about 14 months or so to take effect. If one agrees with this (as your side is quite arguable also), then the current administration's use of fiscal policy to help improve economic conditions has been nothing but lackluster. :rasp:

To clarify: I do not "blame" most administrations for the current state of the economy (I have had many economics classes myself and like to think I'm no slouch, lol) but rather consider fiscal policy as a reactive situation used in order to combat particular trends or negatives in the economy. I do not attribute the suuccess of the late 90's solely to the Clinton adminstration or Reagan trickle-down (BS IMHO anyway), but rather technological trends coupled with effective use of fiscal policy.

 

[Kitchen Chemist]

Politics are gay whatever way you look at it

 

[CDB]

If one agrees with this (as your side is quite arguable also), then the current administration's use of fiscal policy to help improve economic conditions has been nothing but lackluster. :rasp:

No doubt, but he's no more or less to blame than anyone else, and at least gets some credit for tax cuts so not so much productive capital is destroyed by government waste.

I do not attribute the suuccess of the late 90's solely to the Clinton adminstration or Reagan trickle-down (BS IMHO anyway), but rather technological trends coupled with effective use of fiscal policy.

There is no effective fiscal policy I would argue, except to stay out of the economy period.

 

[jweave23]

No doubt, but he's no more or less to blame than anyone else, and at least gets some credit for tax cuts so not so much productive capital is destroyed by government waste..

1. His tax cuts, during a time of huge war expenditures, have done little to stimulate the economy and only drove the recession farther into the ground. Tax cuts look good to voters, but they didn't seem to benefit the right people or be made at the right time. Talk about government waste? .... the bill for Iraq is a good example IMHO

There is no effective fiscal policy I would argue, except to stay out of the economy period.

I'm sure many economists may agree with you here. I definitely do believe that that government must have some role, however.

 

[CDB]

1. His tax cuts, during a time of huge war expenditures, have done little to stimulate the economy and only drove the recession farther into the ground. Tax cuts look good to voters, but they didn't seem to benefit the right people or be made at the right time. Talk about government waste? .... the bill for Iraq is a good example IMHO.

Yes that is a good example of government waste. There may be a payoff down the road though if the long shot occurs and the Middle East does stabilize and go more capitalist in the future. As for the tax cuts going to the "right" people, mind telling me who the "right" people are? I'd assume that if whoever paid the tax got it back, or didn't have to pay it outright, it went to the "right" person. Unless of course through some weird definition of ownership one person gets to lay claim to another's money without giving them something in return. If you're referring to "the rich," since they are demonstrably better at managing their money, evidence of that being that they are in fact rich, and since they pay the lion's share of the taxes, I see no reason why a tax wouldn't and shouldn't end up letting up on them more than anyone else overall.

I'm sure many economists may agree with you here. I definitely do believe that that government must have some role, however.

It does. Equal protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts. Any attempt to actually manipulate the economy or move it in a certain direction will lead to market corrections, or recessions. The sad fact of the matter is that most economists don't agree with this.

 

[Number 5]

No doubt, but he's no more or less to blame than anyone else, and at least gets some credit for tax cuts so not so much productive capital is destroyed by government waste.


There is no effective fiscal policy I would argue, except to stay out of the economy period.

well, bush has handed out the biggest tax cut in a generation (according to his own words) while he has increased public spending more than any other president other than Johnson. Federal spending has grown 3 times as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, and it's not just on the war. Spending on education has gone up by 75% since 2001 (education bill), Medicare has expanded experienced the biggest expansion since it's creation under Bush and the the US government now employs more people than at any other time in history. He's also given huge subsidies to farmers through his farm bill and he's restricted free markets with his steel tariffs.

Bottom line, Bush's fiscal policy is to tax like a small government, but to spend like a big government. The inevitable result has been the biggest budget deficit in US history. You Bush supporters realize that this cannot go on. Either some one has to increase taxes soon or roll back Bush's big spending programs. I don't understand how anyone can consider what we've seen under Bush to be good fiscal policy.

-5

 

[Number 5]

If Kerry gets in we'll likely see another boom, but it'll be inflationary and won't last, and there will be another correction which liberals will blame on the Republicans.

Why would a boom under Kerry be inflationary?

The Fed has been pretty good at keeping inflation down since the 70s with an aggresive monetary policy. Why would they drop the ball if Kerry became the president?

-5

 

[CDB]

well, bush has handed out the biggest tax cut in a generation (according to his own words) while he has increased public spending more than any other president other than Johnson. Federal spending has grown 3 times as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, and it's not just on the war.

And how was this measured? Raw numbers? Increase over expected increase in demand? Does it include a payoff for the defecit or not? The problem with such claims is that there a billion different ways of measuring the increase or decrease, and whoever presents the numbers will usually use the method that puts their claims in the best light. As I said I'm no fan of Bush, but I'm no fan of Kerry either and the nonsense claims from both sides don't cut it for me.

Spending on education has gone up by 75% since 2001 (education bill), Medicare has expanded experienced the biggest expansion since it's creation under Bush and the the US government now employs more people than at any other time in history. He's also given huge subsidies to farmers through his farm bill and he's restricted free markets with his steel tariffs.

All of which I disagree with as policies. How is his economic ineptness any different than Clinton's was or Kerry's would be though?

Bottom line, Bush's fiscal policy is to tax like a small government, but to spend like a big government. The inevitable result has been the biggest budget deficit in US history. You Bush supporters realize that this cannot go on. Either some one has to increase taxes soon or roll back Bush's big spending programs. I don't understand how anyone can consider what we've seen under Bush to be good fiscal policy.

I don't, but I see it as slightly less idiotic as that which was seen under Clinton and what we're likely to see under Kerry. You should read more carefully, I am not a Bush supporter, nor am I a Kerry supporter. Blaming the economy on him though is wrong. He may not be doing anything intelligent to get it going better, but it was shaky at best when he took office and was destined to fall even if his policies were merely a continuation of Clinton's.

 

[goldylight]

This makes me

Call me an idealist, but I don't care how much lower the loss of lives was compared to previous wars, the fact of the matter is that we have about 1000 dead Amercians, a monstrous defecit, poor ecomonic growth, net job losses, no forward policy on education and healthcare, blah blah blah :rant: :frustrate

Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader

Get the jelly out because kerry is officially TOAST!!!

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

 

[CDB]

Why would a boom under Kerry be inflationary?

The Fed has been pretty good at keeping inflation down since the 70s with an aggresive monetary policy. Why would they drop the ball if Kerry became the president?

-5

Because inflation isn't a rise in prices, that's an after effect. By doing a delicate balancing act the Fed has kept the price level reasonably stable. This is bad, prices are supposed to drop over time in a free market. What they have done consistently is manipulate the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, lowering the reserve requirement to near nothing and buying government securities from a select few people. What they do is make credit more available than it would a on a free market. This screws up the signals businessmen get as to what is and is not profitable. The price rise that usually happens along with the increased availability of credit makes unprofitable endeavors look profitable. However, no one is really doing any saving or investment to back up the lowered interest rates. Eventually banks start realizing the loans they've put out aren't going to pay back, they stop lending, and the economy slows down. If there's been a major amount of malinvestment in unprofitable businesses there follows a correction where those assets are liquidated at massively decreased prices, the people in those industries lose their jobs and the market readjusts itself.

This is the Austrian Theory of the business cycle more or less, and it's the only one that adequately explains, and predicted, ever recession we've ever had, stagflation, etc. The Fed and the current banking system basically create money out of thin air, and that's not a good thing because it devalues the currency and leads to misleading market signals.

 

[Number 5]

And how was this measured? Raw numbers? Increase over expected increase in demand? Does it include a payoff for the defecit or not? The problem with such claims is that there a billion different ways of measuring the increase or decrease, and whoever presents the numbers will usually use the method that puts their claims in the best light.

The source is "The Republican spending explosion" by Veronique de Rugy, Cato Institute, March 2004.

The numbers are the largest annual % real discretionary spending. I consider the Cato Insitute to be a reputable source so the numbers should be accurately calculated.

Furthermore I heard Stephen Moore, president of Club for Growth and a Bush supporter, admit frustration in an interview because Bush has grown the federal budget three times as fast as Clinton did in his words. He also said that he believes that Bush does not fundamentally believe in small government.

But you can go back and look at all the spending Bush has undertaken - I mentioned a few of the big programs, but he's also spent a lot on his faith based initiatives, AIDS med aid to Africa, lots of pork for big corporations and so forth. Of course the war in Iraq is also eating up a lot money, plus the govt has to pay interest on it's deficit.

It's no secret that Bush is a big spender. Even "Rush Limbaugh has complained that Mr Bush's legacy may be the greatest increase in domestic spending, and one of the greatest setbacks to liberty, in modern times" according to this week's The Economist. Increasingly I've heard the mainstream media pick up on this issue probably because some republicans still try to claim that Bush stands for small government.

-5

 

[Number 5]

Blaming the economy on him though is wrong. He may not be doing anything intelligent to get it going better, but it was shaky at best when he took office and was destined to fall even if his policies were merely a continuation of Clinton's.

Here I mostly agree with you, but if Clinton's economic policies had been continued, then I doubt that the federal budget would be in a huge deficit right now.

-5

 

[Number 5]

Because inflation isn't a rise in prices, that's an after effect. By doing a delicate balancing act the Fed has kept the price level reasonably stable. This is bad, prices are supposed to drop over time in a free market. What they have done consistently is manipulate the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, lowering the reserve requirement to near nothing and buying government securities from a select few people.

Inflation:
A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.
(from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inflation)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interest rates and the money supply are too separate things. Are you suggesting there is some sort of causal relationship between them?

In the past 25 years the Fed has kept the money supply pretty steady and focussed mostly on keeping inflation under control with interest rate changes. When they raise interest rates people save more (and thus spend less), which kills inflation. When they cut interest rates saving becomes less profitable and loans become cheaper, so people spend more, but this can lead to inflation.

Right now the Fed has voiced it's intention to slowly but steadily raise interest rates up to about 4% at least, but Greenspan has specifically said that he will raise them faster if inflation picks up, so despite your explanaiton (which honestly does not make any sense to me) I do not see how the Fed would let inflation out of control, or why the economy should crash if Kerry wins. In fact most economists predict decent growth and reasoble inflation in the foreseaasble future, though their recent estimates have been overly optimistic.

-5

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Bush is up by Double Digits
Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

 

[size]

I have to admit that I rarely get involved in economic debates because the vast majority know little to nothing about economics. This is not meant to be an insult directed at anyone in particular but more of a statement. Public perception of economics is absolutely obscene. Ask someone what fiat money is or why the US dollar, for example, has any value at all. Another particular problem in the USA is the reliance on consumer confidence which is inherently a problem since the public lacks the understanding of economics.
Economics is a discipline with different perceptions. There are economist today who are classics, neoclassics, monetarist, keynesian, neokeynesians, socialist etc.

 

[DR.D]

Look, the fact is that rates are increasing and the economy is moving up.

John Kerry's book "The New Soldier" shows members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) imitating the famous photograph of U.S. Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. In this pose, the American flag is carried upside-down, a symbol of disrespect according to the rules of flag etiquette. It's actually illegal. How are you going to tell an American soldier that this is thier new commander in chief?! He's a coward ass Benedict Arnold. He won't even admit that he's lied at least 50 times about his 'secret mission to Cambodia.' It brings into question everything he's said if he can't even give up the lie after he's been cold busted and called on it. At least 60 members of his service squad verified the accuracy of the book "Unfit for Command" check out this site were it is available:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php

I recommend this book to everyone. Forget the economy. It doesn't matter if the country goes to **** anyway. In case you didn't know, the US is the biggest debtor in the world. We owe everyone money! There is only enough reserve gold to cover 1/10 of 1% of the paper out there. Really. So let him spend if he wants cause it's really not there anyway! Wake up! Now, go look in the mirror, and kick your own ass back into reality before someone else has to do it for you. John Kerry is more than a joke, he's a fucking disgrace.

 

[CDB]

Inflation:
A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.
(from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inflation)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interest rates and the money supply are too separate things. Are you suggesting there is some sort of causal relationship between them?

Yes there is. First, Inflation defined better: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=908&fs=defining+inflation

What essentially happens is that as the Fed lowers the interest rates they have control over they send a false signal to business men that people prefer future consumption over present when there hasn't been such a change in people's preferences. As a result there is more money available in the form of credit, and there is the expansion. Usually an entrepreneur will factor interest to be paid on a loan into his predictions about whether this or that business will be a profitable investment. When the rates are artificially low what would look unprofitable in light of a genuine assessment of real means available for investment starts to look profitable. Unsustainable businesses which actually lenthen the structure of production within society are openned. The usual tendency over time is to favor shortened, more efficient production structures.

A lot of people have trouble understanding how the Fed and banks can simply create money out of thin air, but they essentially can because of fractional reserve banking. By lowering the reserve requirements and printing new money for banks to hold in reserve the Fed can allow banks to increase their ability to loan out money exponentially. By lowering the interest rates they make bank credit more easily available. By buying securities with newly minted money they send fiat notes directly into the system. This general increase in the actual stock of money within the economy allows the prices for everything to be bid up, including labor. People are getting paid more, and since their time preference hasn't changed they're still spending in a more present oriented manner. This gives further false signals about what is and is not profitable.

Then one day a banker realizes he's not getting a return on a lot of loans he put out there. The businesses aren't really earning a profit, and the decreased buying power of the inflated money people are paying him back with causes him to decide not to loan as much anymore or at all, and interest rates start to go up as the decrease in the buying power of money gets factored into the loans that do go out. As well, the price rise that results from inflation causes a tendency to favor imports over domestic products. This causes money to flow out of the country and starts to further reduce the available funds within the economy and puts even more pressure on banks. This happens in a chain reaction throughout the economy and you get a correction, from mild to severe. The market basically slows down or crashes as it readjusts to peoples real time preferences.

Now you are right in that Fed has done a good job controlling inflation as it's commonly understood: price rises. However the fact that they are doing a good job of this is a very bad thing. Prices are supposed to fall over time in a free market, not stay the same.

Right now the Fed has voiced it's intention to slowly but steadily raise interest rates up to about 4% at least, but Greenspan has specifically said that he will raise them faster if inflation picks up, so despite your explanaiton (which honestly does not make any sense to me) I do not see how the Fed would let inflation out of control, or why the economy should crash if Kerry wins. In fact most economists predict decent growth and reasoble inflation in the foreseaasble future, though their recent estimates have been overly optimistic.
-5

The economy won't crash if Kerry wins. It'll probably start booming again for a couple years, but there will be the inevitable correction once the boom ends because it was inflationary in the true sense in that it will arise out a generally greater availability of money and credit than the savings of people would truly allow. And as usual, people will blame it on Republicans when the truth is the busts follow naturally and inevitably from the booms, which both parties try to artificially create to make themselves look good to voters. Pull the government out of the equation and allow interest rates to be determined by banks and the true availability of funds and you'll see much steadier, sustainable growth based on true savings and increases in productivity. Tie money to a gold standard and you'll control what little inflation remains because money will be a demand note again, a liability to the bank, and they'll all own some of each others' debts and thus be very wary of putting out loans they can't cover because of the risk of a demand being laid on them.

 

[CDB]

I recommend this book to everyone. Forget the economy. It doesn't matter if the country goes to **** anyway. In case you didn't know, the US is the biggest debtor in the world. We owe everyone money! There is only enough reserve gold to cover 1/10 of 1% of the paper out there. Really. So let him spend if he wants cause it's really not there anyway! Wake up! Now, go look in the mirror, and kick your own ass back into reality before someone else has to do it for you. John Kerry is more than a joke, he's a fucking disgrace.

I ask one thing from my political leaders: that they keep me amused. I don't think Kerry will be anywhere near as amusing as Bush. Bush both blows things up and mangles the English language on a fairly regular basis. It's all I ask, if they're gonna sell and/or destroy my country at least keep my happy by doing so in an interesting and fun way. Kerry is too stiff to do that in my opinion, but you never know.

 

[size]

Interest rate, in the simplest term, is the price of money.

 

[CDB]

Interest rate, in the simplest term, is the price of money.

Yup. A lot of people don't realize how switching it around messes with the money supply though. Price controls cause shortages and surplusses with all things, including money. When the IR is kept too low there should be a shortage of money and investment capital. There isn't though, because banks pyramid loans on top of reserves, the Fed pumps in more reserves and buys government securities back with new money and the supply of money is artificially inflated to meet the increased demand. The underlying cause of recessions that follow such inflation is what happens with the structure of production, the over bidding of prices leading to preferences for imported goods and labor outsourced abroad, etc.

All politicians in a recession tell us to spend to stimulate the economy. What we should be doing is saving so there's actually some money to back up all those malinvestments that pop up. It won't stop the recession, but it would cushion the blow it deals because the economy won't have to radically reevaluate consumer's time preferences.

It always amazes me too that liberals don't get super pissed about inflation. It's basically wealth transfer from the average joe to the rich. We don't see these wonderful low interest loans for investment, a select few people do. When the money is first made available it has the buying power of the current dollar. When the cash finally filters down to the average worker and he sees it in his paycheck, the buying power is reduced and the pay increase is essentially worthless. The government is essentially stealing the future value of our money. It's one of the reasons trickle down economics doesn't work. Wealth and property redistribution don't work in any way, be it taking from the rich and giving to the poor or the other way around.